Evaluating the N1-P2 interpeak latency of the eCAP and its inter-trial variability as potential indicators of neural synchrony in the cochlear nerve of cochlear implant users
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Objective
This study evaluated interpeak latency (IPL) and its inter-trial variability (VIL) of the electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) as potential alternatives to the phase-locking value (PLV) for quantifying cochlear nerve (CN) synchrony in cochlear implant (CI) users.
Design
The IPL was assessed in postlingually deafened adults and three pediatric populations: children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, cochlear nerve deficiency, and typical sensorineural hearing loss. VIL was evaluated only in adults. Their associations with temporal resolution and speech perception outcomes were evaluated. Frequency analysis was conducted to understand the impacts of eCAP recording noise on IPL, VIL, and PLV. Simulations of inter-trial jitter in the eCAP were performed to quantify how the IPL, VIL, and PLV metrics varied with increased temporal jitter.
Results
eCAP traces recorded in all patient groups showed a multi-peak issue affecting the accuracy of IPL and VIL assessments. Temporal resolution and speech perception outcomes were significantly correlated with VIL but not with IPL metrics. The PLV was impacted less by recording noise than either the IPL or the VIL. Simulation results revealed that the IPL was less sensitive to the amount of inter-trial jitter in the eCAP than were the VIL and the PLV.
Conclusions
The IPL is not a reliable indicator of CN synchrony. The VIL is indicative of neural synchrony in the CN but is affected more by the eCAP recording noise than the PLV. The PLV is therefore the preferred measure for quantifying neural synchrony in the CN in CI users.
Statements and Declarations
Conflict of Interest
None.
IRB information
The data reported in this study were collected for the projects that were approved by the biomedical Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The Ohio State University (IRB study #: 2017H0131, 2018H0344 and 2018N0005; PI: Shuman He), and the IRB of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (IRB study #: 12–1737; PI: Shuman He).
Author Contributions
SH designed this study, participated in data analysis, drafted and approved the final version of this paper. ICB participated in study design and data analysis, conducted computational modeling work, drafted and approved the final version of this paper. ZG participated in data analysis, provided critical comments, and approved the final version of this paper. RAA participated in data analysis and approved the final version of this paper. CRM participated in data collection and approved the final version of this paper.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request with permissions from The Ohio State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.